IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [regext] Feedback about breakage analysis

Jasdip Singh <jasdips@arin.net> Wed, 01 June 2022 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <jasdips@arin.net>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F46C14F749 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 09:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SH6qAj3sc0mH for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 09:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.arin.net (smtp3.arin.net [199.43.0.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCF5DC14F73B for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 09:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net (cas01cha.corp.arin.net [10.1.30.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp3.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFF6010757B0; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 12:46:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.62) by CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 12:46:54 -0400
Received: from CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net ([fe80::99af:898b:219f:401]) by CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net ([fe80::99af:898b:219f:401%17]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.000; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 12:46:54 -0400
From: Jasdip Singh <jasdips@arin.net>
To: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [regext] Feedback about breakage analysis
Thread-Index: AQHYddVTSvj412ai7kW6+MN3KzMWW606wrsA
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2022 16:46:54 +0000
Message-ID: <0B19F02E-0FE3-4C6B-8355-BA5B30880FE2@arin.net>
References: <d28b8a72-4a32-cbd2-cb84-4f43bb0c85f2@iit.cnr.it>
In-Reply-To: <d28b8a72-4a32-cbd2-cb84-4f43bb0c85f2@iit.cnr.it>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.136.136.37]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <6409E6766B594B48B27B6649A66057AD@corp.arin.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/hwwedSZAmmBkBaDRrCYnw80eIS8>
Subject: Re: [regext] Feedback about breakage analysis
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2022 16:47:01 -0000

Thank you, Mario. Let me review your feedback, and adjust the analysis accordingly. Probably, early next week. :)

Jasdip

On 6/1/22, 12:33 PM, "regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo" <regext-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> wrote:

    Hi Jasdip,

    I would suggest to add Approach C and split some scenarios into smaller 
    changes.

    I mean, some of the scenarios presented merge breaking and non-breaking 
    changes.

    I would classify the scenarios reflecting the basic breaking and 
    non-breaking changes as in the following.

    Possible breaking changes that can occur in the RDAP context include:

         Removing a response field
         Modifying a path URI
         Modifying a field name or type
         Modifying a required query parameter

    While non-breaking changes include:

         Adding a path
         Adding a response field
         Adding an optional query parameter

    Any combination of breaking changes should be treated as one 
    non-breaking change while any combination including at least one 
    breaking change should be treated as one breaking change (e.g., 
    "Replacing jCard with JSCard" is equal to "Removing jCard " + "Adding 
    JSCard").

    That being said, anyone can realize that Approach A (at least as is for 
    now) transforms the non-breaking changes in breaking ones. For example, 
    defining a new version of a request extension by adding an optional 
    query parameter to a given path implies that the path URI gets modified 
    (@Jasdip, this scenario corresponds to the second one presented in your 
    breakage analysis but limited only to the assumption "Query parameter q1 
    added"). Likewise, adding a new member to a response extension would 
    result in modifying the name of the response extension as well (@Jsdip, 
    this seems to me not included in your breakage analysis).

    For that reasons, I wouldn't opt for Apporach A.


    Cheers,

    Mario


    -- 
    Dr. Mario Loffredoto a
    Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
    Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
    National Research Council (CNR)
    via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
    Phone: +39.0503153497
    Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo

    _______________________________________________
    regext mailing list
    regext@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email